IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlawss/v12y2023i4p63-d1196198.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Abducted Child’s Best Interests versus the Theoretical Child’s Best Interests: Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific

Author

Listed:
  • Mark Henaghan

    (Faculty of Law, University of Auckland, Auckland 1010, New Zealand)

  • Christian Poland

    (Faculty of Law, University of Auckland, Auckland 1010, New Zealand)

  • Clement Kong

    (Faculty of Law, University of Auckland, Auckland 1010, New Zealand)

Abstract

A recent trend can be seen in jurisprudence concerning the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, at least in the Australasia/Pacific region. Courts are now more mindful of the abducted child in particular and will investigate the true impacts of returning the child to determine what is in their best interests, particularly in cases of domestic violence. This is a departure from the long-standing emphasis on returning abducted children promptly to their country of habitual residence, after which the courts of that country will make the final decision, because it is generally in the best interests of children to deter child abduction. This article compares various jurisdictions’ approaches with the lens of whether the courts are preferring the particular child over the ‘theoretical’ child.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark Henaghan & Christian Poland & Clement Kong, 2023. "Abducted Child’s Best Interests versus the Theoretical Child’s Best Interests: Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific," Laws, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-13, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlawss:v:12:y:2023:i:4:p:63-:d:1196198
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/12/4/63/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/12/4/63/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlawss:v:12:y:2023:i:4:p:63-:d:1196198. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.